The Federal Supreme Court Family Affairs Circuit. Supreme Court Decision No / 178/2016 Issued by the Supreme Court, Family Law First Circuit headed by His Excellency; as President Abdulrahim Abd Alsaid and the Membership of Her Excellency Faiza Ibrahim Zain Alabdein and Excellency Rabab Mohammed Mustafa, the Supreme Court Magistrates; on 20/3/2016 (Presented: - Record of Appeal No 145 /c/ 2015 River Nile Court of Appeal Aldamr. The record of the two suits No / 77 /g/ 2015and 641/ Objection / 2015 - filed at Adamr Court Applicant: Mossadq Abdullatif Shaaban Opponent: - Bashriyah Nu’man & Awadiyah Abdulrahman Judgment This is an objection submitted to the Supreme Court by Advocate Hozyfa Bakry Alhaj on behalf of the applicant, against Aldamr Court of Appeal decision No a. s. shein / 145/ 2015/, ordering the quashing of the Court of First Instance decision and instructed the court to follow instructions stated in the Appeal ruling memo. The reason for objection could be summed up to be that, initially the Court of First Instance investigating the suit gave the defendant more than a chance to submit evidence. Upon submitting evidence, the Court considered the evidence as insufficient and gave the defendant a chance to present more evidence to the point at stake. For failing to meet this request, the Court granted the defendant the option to direct oath to the plaintiff. The defendant refrained from directing the oath to the plaintiff; finally the advocate contented that the defendant has no evidence other than what was submitted. He further concluded that the defendant has no evidence other than what she had submitted before the Court. He added that the weight and the evaluation of evidence is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal has no power to intervene in such weighting and evaluation process. He consequently and for the reasons stated asked for the quashing of the Court of Appeal decision and confirming the Court of First Instance judgment ordering to dismiss the case. The objection is formally acceptable for its fulfillment of the requirement and conditions provided for under S. 159 and S190 of the Civil Procedure Act .as amended 2009 The facts of the case could be summarized to be that the plaintiff filed the suit No 77/2015 before Aldamr Court for Family Affairs alleging that the defendant (Awadiya) was his former wife- and now divorced - she gave birth for him his son Samir age 7 and he is in the wife custody. However, the son age is now over 7 years and hence he becomes outside the age of women custody. In addition to that the custodian was married to another man stranger to the boy. He claims the custody of the son for the above staed reasons The defendant admits the case and added that the child is not in her custody but in the custody of her mother Bashria Noaman and the mother is fit and suitable for the child custody. The Court joined the mother to the suit as being the person in whose custody the child is. The defendant alleged the mother suitability and devoting of full time to the child custody. She further added that she lived in separate house from the child mother and the grandmother is, educated (secondary school graduate), capable of looking for child and able to grow and educate the child well. , The court burdened the defendant to prove the suitability of the grandmother of the child. In this respect the defendant called for witnesses_ whose evidence was considered as insufficient by the court- rejected to direct the oath to the plaintiff (applicant). The Court of First Instance passed a decree against the two defendants to deliver the custody of the child without objection to the plaintiff. Due to the defendants advocate appeal to The River Nile Court of Appeal, the said court issued its judgment the subject of this memo. Subjectively speaking we can say this Supreme Court, as an objection court would not intervene in the Courts of appeal decision except in case where such decision is tainted with illegality, wrongful application of the law, invalidity of procedure or a wrong interpretation of law that affected the proceedings. It worth saying the